linux-kernel - Re: Problematic __attribute__((section(" "))) and gcc alignment

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070622172048.GA30761@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:20:48 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problematic __attribute__((section(" "))) and gcc alignment

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:32:36PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just realized, working on my marker infrastructure, that a lot of 
> __attribute__((section(" "))) should probably come along with an
> aligned() attribute. Since there are no data structures of size greater
> or equal to 32 bytes put in these sections later referred to by
> __sectionname_start[] and __sectionname_end[], the problem is never
> encountered (AFAIK). But as soon as these structures will reach 32 bytes
> in size, things will go ill:
> 
> Let's take arch/i386/boot/video.h as an example:
> 
> it defines 
> 
> struct card_info {
>         const char *card_name;
>         int (*set_mode)(struct mode_info *mode);
>         int (*probe)(void);
>         struct mode_info *modes;
>         int nmodes;             /* Number of probed modes so far */
>         int unsafe;             /* Probing is unsafe, only do after "scan" */
>         u16 xmode_first;        /* Unprobed modes to try to call anyway */
>         u16 xmode_n;            /* Size of unprobed mode range */
> };
> 
> Which is 28 bytes in size (so it is ok for now). If one single field is
> added, gcc will start aligning this structure on 32 bytes boundaries.
> (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1999-11/msg00914.html)
> 
> We then have
> #define __videocard struct card_info __attribute__((section(".videocards")))
> extern struct card_info video_cards[], video_cards_end[];
> 
> Which instructs gcc to put these structures in the .videocards section.
> The linker scripts arch/i386/boot/setup.ld will assign video_cards and
> video_cards_end as pointers to the beginning and the end of this
> section. video_cards[0] is therefore expected to give the first
> structure in the section.

The linker will align the start of the section to the biggest alignment
required by any member in the section. So gcc should tell the linker
that video_cards needs 32 bytes alignemnt and we are not facing trobles.

BUT this requires that the labels in the linker script file are
correct assigned like this:

 .tracedata : AT(ADDR(.tracedata) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
        __tracedata_start = .;
        *(.tracedata)
        __tracedata_end = .;
  }

If the assignment of __tracedata_start was doen just before the .tracedata
we would not use the alignment imposed by linker and would see the error you describe.

	Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/